Ringer

When I saw Indiana on there my thought process went, "What the hell? We're not that stu. . . wait, yes we are. Dammit."

2 things: 1.) I think you were looking for occipital lobe, not frontal 2.) If it were as easy as you explain, we could have had this decades ago

Have you ever seen letters on the moon? It's obviously fake. . .

And god will hate America again. Personally I'm very excited about that part, it means he'll stop watching me and my wife at night. It's really been ruining the mood.

But why would a glitch have a one box far overlap another without the overlap moving somewhere else. I could see maybe a box being slightly extended due to an oversight on the programmers part, but to have such a massively oversized selection area that overlaps directly over the oppositions selection box seems to be a pretty egregious error. Imagine the positive rep points slection area grossly overlaping the neg rep area to where you have to hunt to give neg reputation. It shouldn't be that hard to catch on the debugging.

You know if shenanigans were going on with this you may find Romney being selected when someone attempts to pick Obama. . . http://venturebeat.c...machine-glitch/ It's not substantial evidence of tampering or anything, but come on. Why the f*$% wouldn't these things be tested and calibrated well enough to last a day. [edit] Didn't realize this was already posted. apologies[/edit]

And this

A crash course in what, exactly? You know how to do research and back up what you have said with evidence, it just seems you refuse to. Even if you didn't there are enough links to sources here that you could easily try to evaluate both sides of the spectrum and find that at least some of what you have said is blatantly false. By all means vote on who you want, but please don't vote based on something you've heard or some emotional drive. Vote based on what the evidence shows to be helping this country. If there is evidence Romney's policies will more than likely do better than Obama's, by all means vote for Romney. Even more importantly, show others this evidence so we can make the correct decision based on all available evidence.

This is probably the most helpful thing I've gotten from this thread.

I would assume his factual statement is a joke. I honestly don't even know what this means

The thing is I could just as easily say that about everything you listed as doing science. It's a way of going about things and a way of thinking, not actions in themselves. In a religious setting the way of going about things is suspending disbelieve in miracles, magic, supernatural, etc. It is also about an uncritical subservience towards a higher power. Scientific methodology cannot have these things. There can be no suspension of disbelief, there is either evidence or there isn't. All ideas and evidence must be held under high scrutiny no matter the source, authority should mean nothing. The argument seems to be analogous to a situation such as this: 1: You can't play both football and baseball, they're mutually exclusive sports 2: Yes you can, I played football yesterday and baseball last week. It's easy to do both 1: No, I mean when you are playing football you are not playing baseball. They're different sports 2: But I just explained I, personally, have played both 1: You can do both, but the argument is you can't do both at the same time ad nauseum

I just have to say this is not true. People are, as a whole, becoming more intelligent. It's called the Flynn Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

See that sounds so much more sensible. The problem I had was the seemingly sexist remark that women wanted jobs so they could buy 'goodies', as if they don't support families or anything. I have no real problem with the underlying assumption of job creation. You didn't say that? That's odd because there's someone with your name and avatar who said something very similar. I may have misunderstood, but you did say it. Women are holding jobs with Obama being in office, and why would they prefer to have birth control treated differently than their other medicines?

IIRC there was a 10 year-old who recently discovered a new molecule when playing with one of those chemistry model sets. Obviously this is pretty darn rare, but it's pretty cool nonetheless

Crap, did you see where those goalposts went?

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

[bolded mine] I think that's the problem you keep running into. Belief doesn't regulate the real world. If you have to tell someone to let you believe what you think to be factual, then you really shouldn't be debating anything. That would be like me arguing about today's politics on the basis of what would probably work in 16th Century Japan. It's not reality, it's a fantasy and does nothing to improve the real world.

Hard to say. It depends how much further we get to understanding the minutia of the inter-workings of the brain. Even with fMRI the data we have is a kind of gross simulation. But then again, people had the same doubts about the human genome project.

It seems like Southern Indiana, where I'm from, votes primarily Democrat, but it's pretty racist/religious/idiotic here as well.

Blue Brain Project is already working on virtually the same thing. http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

I haven't looked at the video, but it's almost certainly a fake. The only way a goat could possibly survive with 8 legs is to be a conjoined twin, otherwise it would need mutations to add vertebrae, ribs, etc. The probability of that is virtually nothing. A goat human hybrid is impossible, they are not nearly closely related enough to interbreed.

I thought Kupiec's research was on cellular development, not cell-cell signaling. Would you happen to have a link to the actual study, because it sounds like what they're saying is that neurons entered an absolute refractory period and the surrounding neurons compensated by sending stronger signals which isn't surprising. The results may be surprising, but that doesn't mean they are not deterministic because the phenomena just may not have been studied before. Again I would really like to look at the actual paper.

It's not so much what's wrong with his beliefs as what the hell are his beliefs. We all do it, at least most of what you see here is backed up by some sort of evidence. That would be like me asking what the big deal is if I told a bunch of school age children that some people believe you can't get pregnant if you don't want to. It's a blatant lie and, as such, should not be tolerated from an authority figure who is supposed to be educating. The problem is that these people actually believe their beliefs trump reality. Nature doesn't care what you believe, it is going to carry on with its materialistic, deterministic ways. If we allow Creationism or ID into a science classroom there is nothing stopping anyone from saying, "My religion doesn't believe in the Holocaust/Pythagorean Theorem/F=ma/any factual occurrence. It's not about someone being converted, I couldn't care less if my child believed in a diety, it's complete idiocy that terrifies me.

Are you really asking if gas giants have oceans?

It's been long known that areas of the brain show large amounts of activity when sleeping and others show very little activity, as well as vice versa. This has absolutely no bearing on the way proteins are expressed. Also, just so I'm following correctly, are you saying that the areas of the brain that are active/inactive are random?